IRC log of webont on 2004-01-29

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:25:28 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #webont
17:25:42 [jh_scribe]
jimH: I'd welcome WG feedback and suggestions
17:26:04 [jh_scribe]
janet - jeremy asked about companion or supporting PRs
17:26:41 [jh_scribe]
janet - current thinking is we will have decision and publish the docs on Feb 10 -- Press Release will cross the wire at 10AM Eastern on Feb 10
17:27:04 [DanCon]
ACTION: JimH to work on updating the FAQ
17:27:09 [jh_scribe]
janet - we ask that companion PRs be at least 15 minutes after Feb 10 announcement
17:27:39 [jh_scribe]
janet - we ask to see the Press Release in advance -- mainly we are looking to make sure W3C descriptions are done
17:27:57 [jh_scribe]
janet - but also we want to know so we (W3C) can point people at your Press Releases
17:28:24 [jh_scribe]
jeremy - how do I point at a PR? janet - it'll be on the web and you can include the URI
17:28:55 [jh_scribe]
janet - and that'll be a pointer that you can use in your Press Releases
17:29:06 [guus]
guus has joined #webont
17:29:43 [jh_scribe]
q+ to ask about RDF/OWL joint testimonials?
17:29:48 [DanCon]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
17:29:48 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Janet, Marwan_Sabbouh, DanC, JeremyC, Ian_Horrocks, NickG, HermanT, jimH, Evan_Wallace, JosD, Guus_Schreiber, Sandro
17:31:11 [jh_scribe]
ACTION: contact Chris Welty and ask about IBM
17:31:39 [jh_scribe]
SNObase
17:32:27 [jh_scribe]
jimh: putting people interested in press or having questions in touch with you is good to do?
17:32:40 [jantelcon]
w3t-pr@w3.org
17:32:41 [DanCon]
"send all press requests to w3t-pr@w3.org." -- http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Contact#press
17:32:44 [jh_scribe]
janet: yes - but contact w3t-pr@w3.org
17:33:07 [jh_scribe]
jeremy - is that for only draft PR?
17:33:50 [jh_scribe]
janet - no, for anything that is related -- it's just w3t-pr makes sure that someone gets an answer if janet is unavailable
17:34:04 [jh_scribe]
ack jimH
17:34:10 [jh_scribe]
ack jh_scribe
17:34:10 [Zakim]
jh_scribe, you wanted to ask about RDF/OWL joint testimonials?
17:34:42 [jh_scribe]
janet: we will send pointers to both sets of testimonials, but if they're asking about just one of these we want to point them to the specific set
17:34:53 [jh_scribe]
janet: but if someone talks about both it will go on both lists
17:35:25 [jh_scribe]
janet: no problem if some org wants to do separate testimonials for RDF and OWL
17:35:59 [jh_scribe]
janet: how the spec is used in a particular project or product is usually the best thing -- how does having OWL change the lives of your org or your org's customers
17:36:26 [jh_scribe]
janet: w3t-pr or eric miller will be happy to help you make your testimonials more effective
17:36:46 [jh_scribe]
jimh: reminds folks that the testimonials are kept to 100 words
17:37:19 [jh_scribe]
ACTION: JimH to contact NIH about OWL in NCIBI
17:38:30 [jh_scribe]
JIMH-CHAIR -- IMPORTANT: PLEASE HELP US GET TESTIMONIALS FROM OTHER FOLKS USING OWL
17:38:34 [Zakim]
-Janet
17:38:40 [jh_scribe]
(or ontologies and plan to use OWL)
17:40:27 [DanCon]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
17:40:27 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Marwan_Sabbouh, DanC, JeremyC, Ian_Horrocks, NickG, HermanT, jimH, Evan_Wallace, JosD, Guus_Schreiber, Sandro (muted)
17:40:29 [jantelcon]
jantelcon has left #webont
17:40:44 [jh_scribe]
---------------
17:40:47 [jh_scribe]
Agenda item 5
17:40:53 [jh_scribe]
herman: propose we
17:41:42 [jh_scribe]
herman: 1 - change test 205 to remove OWL FULL
17:42:28 [jh_scribe]
herman: 2 - editorial comments in S&AS and Test to specify that RDF Datatype theory for OWL FULL must contain XMLLiteral
17:42:52 [jh_scribe]
herman: in S&AS section 5 will state that datatype map includes XMLliteral
17:43:18 [jjc]
cf http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Dec/0100.html
17:43:27 [jjc]
change to test in 4.2.2
17:43:29 [jh_scribe]
herman: also in section 5 to make it clear that if XMLliteral is not in datatype map, then there is some precedences in the semantics doc
17:44:05 [jh_scribe]
danC: straw poll to see what the support is for Herman's proposal?
17:44:19 [jjc]
also changes in 5.2,
17:44:24 [jh_scribe]
danc: question is -- should we consider this change or are you happy w/docs as is
17:45:17 [jh_scribe]
straw poll - more than half think this worth talking about
17:45:31 [jh_scribe]
ian: I propose we just change the test, but not the S&AS
17:46:31 [jh_scribe]
PROPOSAL: TO recommend to the Director that we change test 205 to remove OWL FUll (and Jeremy to do what is needed to fix this)
17:46:38 [jjc]
(i.e. misc-205)
17:47:05 [jh_scribe]
RESOLVED: TO recommend to the Director that we change test 205 to remove OWL FUll (and Jeremy to do what is needed to fix this)
17:47:13 [jh_scribe]
ACTION: Jeremy to make appropriate changes
17:48:09 [jh_scribe]
ian: that being done, I'm not in favor of these changes to S&AS
17:48:44 [jh_scribe]
ian - I think the document already makes this clear - and I think there is a high cost in change
17:50:02 [jh_scribe]
ian - particularly w/respect to the sentence in section 5.1 that says "if there is a conflict ..."
17:51:06 [jh_scribe]
herman: I think that for a reader of S&AS, esp. if they have RDF alongside, this seems like it is a big difference w/respect to XMLliteral
17:51:16 [jh_scribe]
herman: so I am trying to make something explicit
17:51:35 [jh_scribe]
q+ to ask a question about DL v. Full
17:51:57 [jh_scribe]
ian: seems to me the impact of this is not a real big deal
17:53:07 [jh_scribe]
jeremy: its possible we could say someting in test (aimed at implementor) instead of in S&AS (aimed less at implementors)
17:53:18 [jjc]
The datatype map of an OWL Full consistency checker MUST also support
17:53:18 [jjc]
rdf:XMLLiteral from [RDF Concepts].
17:53:18 [jjc]
The datatype map of an OWL Full consistency checker MUST also support
17:53:18 [jjc]
rdf:XMLLiteral from [RDF Concepts].
17:53:32 [jh_scribe]
danC: asks who would approve of this change to test?
17:53:34 [jjc]
q+
17:53:41 [jh_scribe]
ack jjc
17:55:01 [jh_scribe]
PROPOSAL: To recommend to the Director that we make a change in section 4.2.2 to make it clear that the datatype map of an OWL Full COnsistency checker MUST also support rdf:XMLliteral
17:55:08 [nmg]
nmg has joined #webont
17:55:31 [jh_scribe]
ack jimH
17:55:34 [jh_scribe]
ack
17:55:40 [jh_scribe]
ack jh_scribe
17:55:40 [Zakim]
jh_scribe, you wanted to ask a question about DL v. Full
17:55:55 [jh_scribe]
Guus - would we need to make this change in reference as well?
17:57:02 [jh_scribe]
Guus - we would add words that in FULL we need this
17:57:19 [jh_scribe]
PROPOSAL Ammended to include appropriate words
17:58:09 [jh_scribe]
Jeremy - this would be section 6.3 of ref
17:58:16 [jh_scribe]
RESOLVED
17:58:39 [jh_scribe]
RESOLVED: To recommend to the Director that we make a change in section 4.2.2 to make it clear that the datatype map of an OWL Full COnsistency checker MUST also support rdf:XMLliteral
17:58:51 [jh_scribe]
ACTION: Jeremy to make change in test
17:58:58 [jh_scribe]
ACTION; Guus to make change in reference
17:59:49 [jh_scribe]
herman: lets look at remaining proposals - these effect S&AS
18:00:05 [jh_scribe]
q+ to ask why Ian thinks these changes to FULL (only) are expensive to S&AS
18:00:11 [sandro]
guus, would you please make the change FROM the bytes currently at http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/TR/STAGE-owl-ref/ -- or just send me the new text.
18:00:44 [guus]
Propose to insert sentence after 2nd sentence in Ref 6.3: "OWL Full tools must also support rdf:XMLLiteral"
18:00:56 [guus]
Propose to insert sentence after 2nd sentence in Ref 6.3: "OWL Full tools must also support rdf:XMLLiteral"
18:01:05 [jh_scribe]
herman: the problem is that we really need this for RDF layering, and the current wording is misleading
18:01:27 [guus]
Propose to insert sentence after 2nd sentence in Ref 6.3: "OWL Full tools must also support rdf:XMLLiteral"
18:01:33 [jh_scribe]
herman: and this would help readers to avoid this mistake
18:01:35 [sandro]
understood, Guus.
18:02:36 [jh_scribe]
ian :this has non-local changes
18:02:45 [jh_scribe]
herman: but this has effect on correspondence
18:02:56 [jh_scribe]
ian: but then wouldn't we need to change other things as well?
18:03:05 [DanCon]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
18:03:05 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Marwan_Sabbouh, DanC, JeremyC, Ian_Horrocks, NickG, HermanT, jimH, Evan_Wallace, JosD, Guus_Schreiber, Sandro
18:03:06 [jh_scribe]
herman: but that is already in S&AS
18:08:42 [jh_scribe]
[technical discussion continues]
18:09:56 [jh_scribe]
ian: I'm willing to put the statement about the datatype statement in 5.2 -- it's the other change I approve
18:12:24 [jh_scribe]
general approval heard for Ian's compromise
18:12:26 [DanCon]
jjc, can you write the PROPOSAL for the record?
18:12:27 [nmg]
nmg has joined #webont
18:13:25 [jjc]
The datatype map of an OWL Full consistency checker MUST also support
18:13:31 [sandro]
(Guus's proposed change to Reference has been incorporated in the staging area. See the htmldiff at http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/diffs/owl-ref.html#DatatypeSupport )
18:13:31 [jjc]
rdf:XMLLiteral from [RDF Concepts].
18:13:31 [jjc]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-semantics-20031215/rdfs.html#5.2
18:13:31 [jjc]
Modify the definition of OWL interpretation by the insertion of
18:13:31 [jjc]
"rdf:XMLLiteral, " between "for" and "xsd:integer".
18:13:43 [jh_scribe]
herman: still not happy - thinks this doesn't fix the issue w/people who are confused about DL
18:14:39 [jjc]
I'm happy with Guus's words in owl-ref
18:14:48 [jh_scribe]
PROPOSAL: To recommend to the Director that we make a change to section 5.2 of S&AS as indicated by Jeremy in this irc
18:14:54 [jh_scribe]
RESOLVED
18:15:01 [jh_scribe]
Abstain: Horrocks
18:15:14 [jh_scribe]
End of agendum 5.2
18:15:55 [jh_scribe]
ACTION: Sandro and Ian to fix S&AS as per this change
18:18:01 [jh_scribe]
jeremy - made a suggestion - Ian accepted it - change made to the draft at the editors discretion
18:18:27 [DanCon]
PROPOSED: to recommend tot he director a change to OWL mapping rules as detailed in agenda and horrock's editor's draft.
18:18:50 [jh_scribe]
RESOLVED
18:19:10 [jh_scribe]
ACTION: SAndro and Ian to make sure change gets to Rec draft
18:20:30 [jh_scribe]
action review --
18:20:48 [jh_scribe]
ACTION -- Guus will produce a text to add in "Reference" explaining in more details the use of annotation
18:20:49 [jh_scribe]
DONE
18:22:00 [guus]
q+
18:23:51 [guus]
q_
18:23:53 [jh_scribe]
ack
18:23:54 [guus]
q-
18:24:03 [jjc]
q+ AOB will we see Rec before publishing?
18:24:10 [jjc]
q+ to AOB will we see Rec before publishing?
18:24:27 [DanCon]
ack jh_scribe
18:24:27 [Zakim]
jh_scribe, you wanted to ask why Ian thinks these changes to FULL (only) are expensive to S&AS
18:24:29 [DanCon]
ack jjc
18:24:30 [Zakim]
jjc, you wanted to AOB will we see Rec before publishing?
18:26:11 [Zakim]
-Evan_Wallace
18:26:16 [Zakim]
-Marwan_Sabbouh
18:26:17 [jh_scribe]
ADJOURNED
18:26:24 [Zakim]
-JosD
18:26:25 [Zakim]
-JeremyC
18:26:26 [Zakim]
-HermanT
18:26:33 [Zakim]
-NickG
18:27:09 [jh_scribe]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2004Jan/0021.html
18:27:25 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
18:27:25 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2004/01/29-webont-irc#T18-27-25
18:27:45 [Zakim]
-Ian_Horrocks
18:27:48 [Zakim]
-jimH
18:28:12 [Zakim]
-DanC
18:28:23 [sandro]
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/TR/STAGE-owl-ref/
18:28:40 [sandro]
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/TR/STAGE-owl-features/#s1.1
18:38:47 [sandro]
zakim, who is here?
18:38:47 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Guus_Schreiber, Sandro
18:38:48 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, jjc, jh_scribe, IanH, Zakim, sandro, ericm, DanCon
18:42:11 [Zakim]
-Guus_Schreiber
18:42:12 [Zakim]
-Sandro
18:42:13 [Zakim]
SW_WebOnt()12:00PM has ended
18:42:14 [Zakim]
Attendees were Janet, Marwan_Sabbouh, DanC, JeremyC, Ian_Horrocks, +31.62.469.aaaa, Guus, NickG, HermanT, jimH, Evan_Wallace, JosD, Guus_Schreiber, Sandro
20:42:25 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #webont